Not contradictory. As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
temporary waystation to allow the future free development.
Brad De Long wrote:
> >yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
> >aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
> >democratic and t
Brad writes:
>... there are two Marxes, the one who believes in the free development of
>each and the one who believes that when they fight their oppressors the
>people have one single general will that the dictatorship of the
>proletariat expresses...
There are clearly two traditions in _Marx
At 12:25 PM 5/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 10:48 AM 05/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow
>>>from malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
>>
>>Rousseau used the seemingly sinister saying about forcing people to be
>>
Not only that, but she came to Chico to visit Ivan Svitak. A lot happens up here in
the big city.
Charles Brown wrote:
> Yes, indeedy. Raya D. lived in Detroit for a while, and there is a Marxist-Humanist
>chapter here. I attended a number of their meetings a few years ago, and read a
>numbe
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> Bakunin
> and his allies had come to control a majority of the
> national groups that were in the First International.
> At that point, when they demanded to take control of it,
> Marx shut it down.
Actually, he moved it to the U.S., where Sorge shut it down, I
Yeah, I know, those old cars are fragile. I would never let a horse fall on mine. --jks
<< At 10:43 AM 5/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
>What do you have against cars with big fins? --jks
if a horse falls against a 1959 Cadillac, it can die.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~
> Brad raises an important question about the cultural development
> of Soviet-style socialism. It has been noted that there are
> parallels between "socialist realism" and the sort of art
> promoted under Nazism. This suggests that there is something in
> the way totalitarian, or would-be tot
CB: >Don't you think that as a genre, rock'n'roll is a failure, like the
Soviet Union, and hoola hoops ? Isn't rock'n'roll a sort of dystopia ?<
I don't think that rock'n'roll and the hula hoop were failures. Even if the
current crap is worthless (and I'm listening to Western-folk like Robert
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:18PM >>
>Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoting modern art with an
anti-communist political aim ? <
that doesn't mean that it was bad art.
__
CB: I thought the Soviets knocked it out because it was being used for anti-commu
I think Brad is right that Marx didn't think much about political sociology from the
perspective of institutional design, or about how group dynamics might work in a
postrevolutionary society. I do not think that supportds the "two Marx" thesis, one
democratic and one dictatorisl. Marx was ent
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:58 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19152] Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>Brad writes:
>>... there are two Marxes, the one who believes in the free development of
>>each and the one who believes that when they fight their oppressors the
>Not contradictory. As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
>temporary waystation to allow the future free development.
>
>Brad De Long wrote:
>
>> >yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
>> >aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
>> >democ
I met her several times in the 1960s. Detroit being not so far from here. (I used to
visit Fredy Perlman as well, another Detroit character). She was a wonderful woman,
but totally obsessive on Hegel. She liked Lenin, but primarily the Philosophical
Notebooks.
Rod
Michael Perelman wrote:
> N
CB wrote:
> >Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoting modern art with an
> anti-communist political aim ? <
I replied:
>that doesn't mean that it was bad art.
CB now replies:
>I thought the Soviets knocked it out because it was being used for
>anti-communist purposes, "good or bad".
arkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:29 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19327] Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>
>>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:18P
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:52PM >>>
So, maybe they were right about one thing. But they -- the unelected Soviet
equivalents of Jesse Helms -- deserved to be tweaked by art, if not more.
>___
CB: More than you deserve to be tweaked by art ?
>Jim,
> Hi. I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
> Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
>slightly. I agree that the first Marx is clearly the dominant
>one in most of his writings, the one for free development of
>people. But he did at certain points issue some rathe
In a message dated 5/17/00 5:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< But he did at certain points issue some rather
sulphurous diatribes about the wretchedness of bourgeois
democracy and also painted a not so nice picture of the
dictatorship of the proletariat as well in
Brad writes:
>Or, in other words: "Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy! We
>directly express the general will!"
That's the perspective of many utopian socialists, Stalinists, and the IMF,
which sees its policies as Good For Humanity in the Long Run, so that it
doesn't matter if demo
At 04:26 PM 5/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/19/00 03:52PM >>>
>So, maybe they were right about one thing. But they -- the unelected Soviet
>equivalents of Jesse Helms -- deserved to be tweaked by art, if not more.
>
> >___
>
>CB: More than you deserve to
In a message dated 5/17/00 10:02:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism?
I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I
Yes, Marx was distrustful of the ideas of utopians, who laid out plans
for the future. He thought that people should organize such things on
their own when the time came.
Brad De Long wrote:
> I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
> how systems of self-rule and pe
I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class divisions,
might decide things that he could not imagine.
Rod
Brad De Long wrote:
>
>
> I susp
ED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19168] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>>Jim,
>> Hi. I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
>> Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
>>slightly. I agree that the first
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19169] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
>In a message dated 5/17/00 5:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
>
><< But he did at certain points issue some rather
>
Brad De Long wrote:
>So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
>was the world afflicted with, say, Paul Sweezy's claim that "One
>need not have a specific idea of a... beautiful musical composition,
>to recognize that the... the rock-and-roll that blares at us
>exem
In fact some Marxists argue that although Marx did not completely agree
with R's notion of the general will, he was positively inlfluenced by R's
critique of private property (unlike liberals like Hobbes and Locke who
naturalized property ownership as a basis for apologizing inequalities
and poss
In a message dated 5/17/00 11:28:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class di
In The Closing of the American Mind, of course. ;) --jks
In a message dated Thu, 18 May 2000 12:16:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< Brad De Long wrote:
>So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
>was the world afflicted with,
Justin writes:
>I would add to this analysis that I think the democratic Marx was a lot
>more popular until the rise of the USSR; you see this in people like Rosa
>Luxemburg ... But the Soviet Unuion claimed the mantle of Marx and
>squelched democracy, So in the shadow of its prestige, the demo
Barkley wrote:
>BTW, in his personal political dealings Marx was not known for democratic
>tolerance. When Bakunin and the anarchists threatened to take control of
>the First International, Marx closed it, shut down the shop, took his
>marbles and went home and pouted.
this a partial picture
Barkley wrote:
>In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of the most
"realist" criticisms of the program of the Eisenach faction of the German
social democratic movement.
>In fact some Marxists argue that although Marx did not completely agree
>with R's notion of the general will, he was positively inlfluenced by R's
>critique of private property (unlike liberals like Hobbes and Locke who
>naturalized property ownership as a basis for apologizing inequalities a
Jim Devine wrote:.
>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize" property
>ownership.
in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism of Hobbes in
_On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what is social
(property) onto human nature, to say that
e: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19221] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
Barkley wrote:
>In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of
I wrote:
>>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize"
property ownership.<<
Mine writes: >in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism
of Hobbes in _On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what
is social (property) onto human nature, to sa
Jim Devine wrote: >In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
reflected >Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
capitalist >competition.
Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
circumstances. He was also *normatively* endorsing ca
Barkley Rosser:
> The utopianism came
> in when he actually discussed what socialism would
> be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
> away of the state and "from each according to his
> ability to each according to his needs;" all very nice,
> but also very utopian, especially t
>Jim Devine wrote: >In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
>reflected Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
>capitalist competition. <
Mine writes:
>Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
>circumstances. He was also *norma
I would add one more thing.Weber's definition of state is quite
misleading. If state is defined in terms of monopolization of power,I
don't think this is unique to capitalist state. If you carefully read
Weber's _Sociology of Ancient Civilizations_, where he analyzes
pre-capitalist states, you wi
2 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19239] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
(fwd)
>Barkley Rosser:
>
>> The utopianism came
>> in when he actually discussed what socialism would
>> be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
>> away of the state and
41 matches
Mail list logo